Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 0) 500

by clonehappy (#46350459) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

Nice appeal to emotion, but fuck off. A few posts down, someone replied that it sets a bad precedent, but that the first time an idiot cop interprets Fido's "woof" as consent to a seach it will be litigated.

The problem, is that it will be litigated and upheld, as cops can do no wrong in the eyes of a judge. All because assholes like you trade our rights away every day in the name of "poor beaten woman", "gang material", "guns", and other dangerous undesirables we should trade our rights away for. Which all sound very reasonable, until you realize where it goes. A totalitarian police state run by people like you who are afraid of shadows

So you know what, fuck off, and fuck the poor beaten woman. She shouldn't have been shacking up with gangbanging trash in the first place if she didn't want gangster shit going on in her house. I'm not giving up my rights because some people can't make even the most basic life decisions in a decent manner. It really isn't my problem, I don't associate with gangbangers so I could really care less if they all murder each other in the gang-ridden cesspits of our victim disarmament zones, and I'll keep my 4th Amendment, thank you very much!/p?

Comment: Color me Shocked! (Score 3, Insightful) 157

by clonehappy (#46305325) Attached to: Safety Measures Fail To Stop Fukushima Plant Leaks

It's not like everyone hasn't been saying this for 3 years now. If you'd been paying attention, you would already know this was the case. But I remember when people were saying this in 2011, 2012, even into 2013, they were nay-sayed and called coal shills and alarmists. Now what?

Comment: Re:Just that same old song and dance. (Score 4, Interesting) 245

by clonehappy (#46282735) Attached to: White House Responds To Net Neutrality Petition

The 'playlist for the dance' will remain the same as long as there are effectively only two parties to choose from at voting time.

And this is why you should support every Tea Party candidate that you can. Now, wait, hear me out. You may not agree with their politics, but you have to admit they're really stirring people up, both on the left and the right. Now, I know, what you're going to say: "They'll ruin our entire system, set the rights of $GROUP back 100 years, make the middle class poor, make the rich richer, and leave us all out to hang and dry!"

And you'd probably be right. And I support that. Yes, I support my quality of life dropping, at least temporarily, if it means we can reboot this entire thing and start over again. There are millions of sane, level-headed liberal folks out there who realize the mess of shit we're in. Just as there are millions of sane, level-headed conservatives out there who realize the same. You see, the average, middle class working person, which whether we admit it on Slashdot or not, most of us are, aren't in support of socialism, no more than we are in support of capitalism. It's a balance. It's not black and white, we're for a decent world to live in. One we can hand down to the next generation and say "See, we tried not to fuck it up so bad, made a few things better, made a few things worse. Give it a shot and see how you do."

But we need to get back to basics. We need a government that builds and maintains infrastructure. Roads, schools, sanitation, water, energy systems. At least at the basic level. We can still have toll roads, we can still have private schools, for those who want them. But government needs to get out of the business of micromanaging people's lives. Now, why should you support the Tea Party? Because if you're so sure they're going to fuck everything up beyond recognition, bring the whole system crashing down to the ground, LET THEM! Then you can rebuild it with your input as you see fit.

As it stands, it's the only real option we have left. No one wants violence or any of that kind of thing here in America. Call it exceptionalism, call it whatever denigrating term you want, I think we're above it. We're not stupid enough to end up shedding the blood of our own people, are we? Over such bullshit as Obamacare, or welfare, or abortion? We can agree to disagree. We can find a compromise that works for everyone, if we stop letting the power structure call all the shots and control every debate with the black and white all or nothing rhetoric. We're not all so different. Not as different as you'd think we are if you watch cable news or read every political blog on the web. We really can fucking get along without secession or violence or this radical idea or that radical idea. But we need to reboot, and the only way to do that is by electing someone who's not a D or an R.

Put the partisan, emotionally charged rhetoric down just long enough to get our country (world?) back. Then we can get right on back to debating about minutia and Justin Bieber. But the hole in the ship isn't getting any smaller, and the guys with the blue and red hammers and nails are only using them to beat us about the head. We can get back to that once we use them to fix the hole and pump out the water. Anyone but the incumbent. That's my vote.

Comment: Re:UI Designers Suck (Score 1) 237

by clonehappy (#46281561) Attached to: A New Car UI

And the most stunning thing is this - When it does not have a high quality signal it still plays, albeit with a modicum of static!

Static?! Unacceptable, sir. This is 2014!! Everything must play in crystal-clear digital HD* sound quality 100% of the time**, or I just won't have it!! Inferior 20th century technology is beneath me.
* (decoded and re-encoded multiple times at 96kb/s with a bad codec)
**(that it will actually play, the 50% of the time the signal fades notwithstanding)

Comment: Re:Are you not entertained! (Score 2, Insightful) 100

I agree. However, while it wouldn't be hard to replicate the system and start over anew, we would lose the years of discussions that slashdot has archived. Don't overlook the value of over a decade and a half of the discussions that have made this site what it is lo these many years.
And the value, for what it's worth, of someone with a 3-4 digit ID coming into the discussion to smack someone with his/her cane. We know what that low UID means, not that the person is speaking the gospel, but maybe we should stop and think about what he or she is saying a little further.
While I agree, whole heartedly mind you, that Slashdot Beta is fully broken, there are aspects of this place that are just impossible to be replicated. Dice isn't just going to hand over the database to the community. We need to preserve and fight for what we have left rather than try and start over anew. It would never be the same.

Comment: Re:CC in a phone? (Score 1) 201

by clonehappy (#45577039) Attached to: Over 20% of Online Black Friday Sales Came From Mobile Devices

I have a passcode on my phone. It doesn't allow data transfer off of the unit until that passcode is entered. After 10 incorrect attempts, bye-bye data.
That being said, even if they get to my pictures or personal text messages, there really isn't fuck all they can do with them. I don't take nude selfies, I don't deal in illegal materials, I rarely even have risque conversations with my girlfriend. Why not?
Because keeping anything you don't want the whole world to see on ANY internet connected device (PC or mobile) is the height of stupidity.

Comment: Re:CC in a phone? (Score 2) 201

by clonehappy (#45576781) Attached to: Over 20% of Online Black Friday Sales Came From Mobile Devices

Storing, absolutely. But why is it any less secure to enter the info into the browser of a phone than any other web browser in existence? You know, the people who have the technology to sniff an LTE or HSPA data connection are either not interested in something as mundane as your credit card number and/or they already have it.

Comment: Re:Government Involvement (Score 1) 499

by clonehappy (#45402441) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To

And they were also invalidated by Constitutional amendments. There were obviously enough people who agree that slavery, segregation, and treating women as second-class citizens were a bad thing that those amendments could be passed.
If you can find enough people to support a Constitutional amendment allowing the government to mandate the legality of same-sex marriage, the ACA, and abortion, then by all means, go for it! I think, however, that there are enough people who disagree with all of those things that getting the Constitution amended to allow them is never going to happen.
When you equate servitude forced at the barrel of a gun or treating women as property with the inability of two people to enter into a legally binding contract in a certain area, you are seriously deluded and need to take a step back and realize why half the country thinks you're crazy.

Comment: Re:Government Involvement (Score 1, Troll) 499

by clonehappy (#45401057) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To

Look here. I'm sick and tired of liberal morons painting everyone with the same brush. We're not all the same. I oppose the ACA, not only because it gets the government, the IRS, and the DHS involved in my personal healthcare decisions (which are all bad enough), but because also it takes away my freedom to make my own decisions regarding how I live my own life, puts even more tax on the already-burdened middle class, and limits the charity care that the lower middle class/poor are already receiving. You think people are dying in the streets now, wait until this shit takes effect.
That being said, I also think the government should stay out of people's bedrooms, marriage chapels, and wombs. Again, it's one more place the government doesn't belong. But, you see, it's not that the leftists want government out of all of those places (like I do in addition to my doctor's office), it's that they want the government IN all those places, on THEIR side.
Therein lies the problem, people wouldn't be happy with only being left alone by the government, oh no. They want their own lifestyles mandated onto everyone else. These are decisions that should be made at the local level. If there is enough demand for same-sex marriage in a given area, then of course that local community should be free to allow it. Additionally, if there is enough demand for abortion at a local level, then a doctor should be free to provide those services. The opposite applies, as well. If a given community has no need for an abortion doctor or same-sex marriages, why should they be federally mandated to provide those services? Because it hurts liberals feelings otherwise, and that's the only reason.
Again, I could care less about abortion, same-sex marriage, or any of these wedge issues because they are distractions designed to polarize left vs. right and keep people divided. But the ACA affects everyone, and that's why it is so dangerous. It brings a whole new level of intrusion into people's lives who don't want it there. If states and municipalities decide that this healthcare system is something that is needed in their area, then they should be free to provide it, and people should be free to opt-into it or ignore it, whichever option fits them better. That's freedom.

Comment: Re:simple (Score 1) 497

by clonehappy (#45094285) Attached to: Cost of $634 Million — So Far

First, you're off topic. Still. Just like the last guy who got up-modded for the same idiotic statement, which I tried politely to sidestep by pointing out the far bigger and relevant problem. But if people are going to keep up-modding you damn trolls... fine.

Trolling is the act of posting obviously inflammatory statements on a message board, solely to garner reactions from unsuspecting readers. I asked a simple question, to which you went off on a paragraphs-long tirade about the shortcomings you perceive of me that included questions about my intellectual capacity, my "privilege", and my "goddamned sense of self-entitlement". You don't know anything about me. You are being as prejudicial as I'm sure you think I am, whether you realize it or not.

You're the one that needs a "citation needed" -- where do you people come up with this stupid shit about minority preferences? The federal law bans such practices, and has ever since Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

Then why didn't you just say that in your first retort to the original poster? No need to attack me. Nevermind that I know for a fact that at the very least, certain localities/municipalities do, indeed, have policies that require a certain percentage of business to go to minority-owned businesses. See the City of Chicago and the State of Wisconsin for examples. Perhaps it doesn't exist at the federal level, I'll look into it, and if it doesn't then that's wonderful. But I'm sure I'm some kind of a racist bigot to you if I solely believe that every contract should be awarded to the enterprise that will deliver the best bang for the public buck. I would say the same thing about hiring practices. Hire the most qualified and competent person you can for every position, in every sector, public and private, and be really, truly, blind to race.

Is this "extremely" wasteful in the same way that Obamacare is the "worst thing that has ever happened to this country"? This kind of hyperbole tells me you watch Fox News too much, and your brains have gone missing.

I don't watch any TV news networks. They are all way too sensationalist and partisan for me. I try to actually read through pieces of legislation and make an honest effort to understand what the real ramifications are of laws before I make a decision on whether or not to support them. As for Obamacare, I really don't want to get into all of that here, but if the web portal dedicated to it has already cost over half a billion dollars, is six times over it's initial budget, and doesn't even function...not really sure how anyone without political motivations can call (at least this portion of it) that a good thing?

Look, .1% isn't extremely wasteful. And you can't exactly calculate what this mythical "preference for minorities" would cost anyway, since the cost is essentially separating two piles of paper.. .1% is probably a massive over-estimation. It's probably more like .00000000027%. AGAIN!

How can you, in one sentence, tell me that it can't be calculated, and in the next throw out another number you've picked cleanly out of thin air to minimize it even further?

This assumes this mythical "minority preference" (a) exists and (b) was even. fucking. relevant.

You people screaming about this "minority preference" thing is tantamount to the Surgeon General looking at the top causes of death, and then deciding to go on a crusade against bottled water, ignoring all the deaths from smoking, high blood pressure, obesity, etc. It's intellectually dishonest, shows a remarkable lack of understanding over what the government actually costs... and why... and frankly, the only way you could be this wrong about the proportions and general understanding of the problem is if you actively tried to! You aren't just ignorant, you're being intentionally misleading, probably because you were mislead by somebody else, and being loathe to admit it, have now subscribed to their lies. Which, coincidentally, is what caused the Dark Ages.

Now come off it man, really. Nobody gives a flying fark through a rolling doughnut about your whack-job ideas about how this mythical "minority preference" is ruining America when we can see clearly that there's at least a hundred more significant things causing cost overruns.

I simply asked why we aren't picking the "best man/woman for the job", so to speak. If it doesn't exist, and I've been misled, then fine. You can say that in a respectful and friendly manner without pre-judging me, belittling me, and attacking me.

And if punching you in the face this hard hasn't gotten your attention, well then, I end with this: Although illegal and non-existant, should your mythical minority preference thing ever become a reality, it would serve you right for your goddamned sense of self-entitlement. Maybe being a trash man or working fast food for a few months would earn you some goddamned respect and perspective about how America really is.

Again, you don't know a damned thing about me, my life, my income, who I am, where I've been, or what obstacles I've overcome to get where I am today and what obstacles I face in the future. Not one damned thing. Maybe that's why 0.1% waste bothers me, regardless of why, because I know what it feels like to need that extra dollar a week. Yet I'm the one who is "punched in the face" for my sense of privilege and self-entitlement. Whatever I really do have, I'll say this, at least I have class. Enough class, at least, not to personally attack random people on message boards because I disagree with their position or because they're wrong about something. That must count for something. But I suppose it serves me right. Somehow, however it is that I managed, with one simple question, to earn your wrath, retribution, and hostility.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?